Will the proposed changes to the rules of rugby union make it more like rugby league?

Question

Are the changes a good thing?

Which of the changes are good and which re bad, in your opinion?

Answer 1

For the last few years rule changes in rugby have largely been devised to see the ball in play more. Understandably it is driven by the Australians who have genuine problems breaking the dominance that rugby league has there, in terms of attracting sports viewers. And the conditions in Oz suit a faster game.

Sports followers who don't know rugby well seem to find it most difficult understanding and enjoying the more static parts of rugby - maul, scrum, lineout. In a bid to attract ever more viewers, these are the aspects of rugby that are being slowly reduced in importance.

Personally I don't like the 5m offside line at scrums. And it appears to me that reducing the number of penalisable offences (in favour of quick-tap style free kicks) only encourages negative and cheating play. Which ends up slowing the game down anyway.

Mauling is a skill and should remain an important part of the game, as it gives rugby one of its most conspicuous differences from league. Mauls when done properly can attract opposition forwards in an attempt to stop them, thus freeing up space for the backs to attack. Pulling the maul down is a soft option tactically, not to mention dangerous.

Answer 2

All in all i honestly think that the new rules are going to completely destroy the identity of union as we know it. Granted, the new one for standing 5 metres behind the scrum offers no problems to me, but that is where the positives stop. If, God forbid, these new 'ELVs' make it to the next world cup, I might have to find a new sport.

Answer 3

They will ruin the game even more.Look at rugby from the '60s and '70s,and see how sanitized the game is now!

Answer 4

All the changes in the super should be beneficial for the game but I don't think the Idea of being able to collapse a maul is good, just gonna make more unplayable rucks

Answer 5

I don't think it'll make that much of a difference.

The best of the changes is the legality of collapsing the maul safely. Every team has been doing it since I started watching rugby seven years ago. Well, using the current rules, a maul is a practically undefendable piece of attack. It is conceivable that a maul could go from one team's tryline to their oppostion's tryline and score. Whilst this is prefectly legal, it wouldn't be a good, fair spectacle to watch (I've never seen it done).

Answer 6

I haven't seen many Super 14 games to see the difference but the way that the Aussies are pushing for the rule changes and the Welsh are dead against them make me think that they're more league orientated.

Answer 7

The good changes - being able to grip the jumper before the lineout ball is thrown - safer I think.

Bad idea - back line 5m from scrum - too much like league. Put in by the Oz RFU to market against the other code.

Being able to pull down a maul. Again from the Southern Hemisphere. For marketing I suspect.  Sadly it is a real skill and done well I think it d**n useful for the game. To be able to pull it down - just strikes me as dangerous. In fact as referee that is what I would penalise bringing down the maul as - dangerous play. How long before someone breaks a neck? As it stans a maul can be stopped....Just step away from it. Some teams were doing this in the world cup during lineouts. If you play a team and they try to maul without someone to maul againt the ref will do them for truck and trailer.

Not sure about the new rules at the break down. I can't seem to make sense of them. Bring back proper rucking as it was of yester year.

I think all these new rules will see an end of rugby union as being a sport for all shapes and sizes. The scums will be depowered. Again the from the Southern Hemisphere - as they can't stand up to the French, English and Argentine scrums.

Seems sad, but I think if all these new rules (sorry laws) come in , I shall hang up my refs whistle.

Answer 8

From the S14 games, it is clear that the new rules does not make Rugby Union more like rugby league. A scrum is still a scrum (not like the group hugs or meetings that is laughingly called a 'scrum' in Rugby League) and the base for attack. A maul is still a maul and a tackle does not kill the ball for anither play - it is still an opportunity to fight for the ball for turnover by the fastest thinking and physically strong players. No, the attack is still an artform nd the best will be those who play and think outside the norm. It makes the game more entertaining and opens opportunities for the attack minded and defence oriented.

The changes are good. So far I don't see too many negatives. Tackle ball and rucks are good and has continued to be good.